• Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    What do you think "perceive mental phenomena" means? Do you think it means that my eyes respond to light reflected by mental phenomena? Do you think it means that my ears respond to sound emitted by mental phenomena? — Michael

    Yes, I think something along these lines is required when talking about perceiving something, especially since the main point of contention in this debate is whether our sensory perception of external objects is direct or indirect.

    I think you're reading something into the meaning of "perceive mental phenomena" that just isn't there. Indirect realists probably aren't saying what you think they're saying when they say that we perceive mental phenomena. Acquaintance with mental phenomena is the appropriate interpretation. — Michael

    User
    Is Russellian acquaintance a form of perception?

    ChatGPT
    Russellian acquaintance, as conceptualized by Bertrand Russell, is not typically considered a form of perception. Instead, it's a type of immediate, non-inferential knowledge or awareness of particular things or experiences.

    Perception usually refers to the process by which we become aware of or acquire knowledge about the external world through our senses. It involves the direct experience of sensory information, such as seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, or smelling external objects.

    Russellian acquaintance, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily involve sensory experience or sensory data. It's more about direct awareness or acquaintance with specific entities or experiences without the need for inference or mediation. This direct awareness can encompass various aspects of reality, including perceptual experiences, but it's not inherently tied to sensory perception in the same way.

    So, while both perception and Russellian acquaintance involve direct awareness or knowledge, they are distinct concepts with different focuses and implications within the realm of epistemology and philosophy of mind.

    This is how to interpret the meaning of "feel" in "I feel pain" and the meaning of "hear" in "the schizophrenic hears voice" and the meaning of "see" in "I see colours". — Michael

    The first two of these examples do not concern the perception of external objects, or else the external object (as the cause of the sensation) is absent. The third example (colours) may concern the perception of external objects, however, you have already acknowledged that the sensory perception of a mental representation is excluded.

    This sense of acquaintance with mental phenomena occurs also in veridical perception, and this is all that is meant when the indirect realist says that awareness of distal objects is mediated by awareness of mental phenomena. — Michael

    User
    Is the direct/indirect realism debate about perception or awareness?

    ChatGPT
    The direct/indirect realism debate primarily concerns the nature of perception rather than mere awareness. It revolves around questions such as:

    • How do we perceive the external world?
    • What is the relationship between our perceptions and the external objects themselves?
    • Are our perceptual experiences direct or mediated?

    In this debate, "perception" refers to the process by which we become aware of or acquire knowledge about the external world through our senses. Direct realists argue that our perceptual experiences directly correspond to features of the external world, meaning that when we perceive an object, we are directly aware of that object itself.

    Indirect realists, on the other hand, propose that our perception of the external world is mediated by mental representations or sense data. According to this view, when we perceive an object, we are not directly perceiving the object itself but rather a mental representation or sense data that represents the object to us.

    So, while both direct and indirect realism involve questions of awareness, they primarily focus on the process and nature of perception and how our perceptions relate to the external world.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    2.The act of processing visual data: To perceive --> causes
    3. Having the resulting conscious experience: To see.     — AmadeusD

    As I explained here, the dispute between direct and indirect realists concerns the directness or indirectness of our perceptual experiences of real objects. When I asked you for evidence of your usage, you provided an article which, in its first line, states that "Perception refers to our sensory experience of the world". The very evidence you provided in support of your view contradicts it.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Sense data just is the unmediated empirical affect the object has, that data, that affect, conditioned by something very different, is the subsequent mediated representation of the perceived object. — Mww

    Also, I don’t understand how you get from “unmediated empirical affect” to “mediated representation”. What is being mediated here? Are you talking about the mediation of our perceptions of objects? What are they mediated by? If you are saying that our perceptions of objects is itself the mediation, then our perceptions of objects are not mediated by anything (else), so that’s not indirect realism.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    To mediate is to arbitrate or condition; that which is a perception cannot arbitrate or be arbitrated by, another perception. Perception mediated by perception is improper and confusing;
    Sense data just is the unmediated empirical affect the object has, that data, that affect, conditioned by something very different, is the subsequent mediated representation of the perceived object. This is indirect realism.     — Mww

    This is not indirect realism according to the linked page provided by @Michael, which describes the relevant mediation as a perception of a perception; the sort of mediation which is lacking in the description of direct realism:

    (2) that our visual perception of […] material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part) — Michael

    I agree that this “perception of a perception” is confusing and unnecessary. It’s a large part of the reason why I am not an indirect realist.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Then where is the mediation of our perception of visual objects by the perception of some other entities such as sense-data?
    — Luke

    We feel pain – a mental phenomenon – and it is in feeling this pain that we feel the fire. We taste a sweet taste – a mental phenomenon – and it is in tasting this sweet taste that we taste the sugar. We see shapes and colours – mental phenomena – and it is in seeing these shapes and colours that we see the cow.     — Michael

    Do you hold the view that we must perceive mental phenomena in order to perceive real objects? If so, then this is where our positions differ and we have more than a grammatical dispute, since it is not my position that we must perceive mental phenomena in order to perceive real objects. If not, then you are not an indirect realist.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    You misinterpret what "perceive mental phenomena" means. I feel pain, and pain is a mental phenomenon. The schizophrenic hears voices, and these voices are a mental phenomenon. I see colours, and colours are a mental phenomenon. This is all that is meant. — Michael

    Then where is the mediation of our perception of visual objects by the perception of some other entities such as sense-data?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    And this is where you're reading something into the grammar that just isn't there. — Michael

    I'm not reading it into the grammar. It is one of the defining claims of indirect realism. As (2) states, direct realism is the proposition that "our visual perception of [...] material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part)". If you agree with this, then you are arguing for direct realism. If you want to argue for indirect realism, then you must hold the view that our visual perception of material objects is mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (or mental representations). But you repeatedly attempt to distance yourself from this view.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The existence of something like a mental representation is what it means for our perception of distal objects to be mediated. — Michael

    This is not what (2) states. It refers to our visual perception of material objects being mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data. That is, it is a perception of a perception. (2) states that a direct perception is where there is no such mediation; no perception of a perception. If this is what you are arguing for, then you are arguing for direct realism.

    I addressed this before when I asked you to explain the difference between "seeing" a mental representation and "having" a mental representation. You were unable to do so. And that is precisely because there is no difference. — Michael

    It is not for me to explain because I am not an indirect realist. Indirect realism entails the mediation of our visual perception of material objects by the perception of some other entities. Therefore, the onus is on you to account for us having perceptions of perceptions. If there is no difference between having perceptions and having perceptions of perceptions, then there is no need to account for such mediation and indirect realism is false.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael


    Naïve realism is a theory in the philosophy of perception: primarily, the philosophy of vision. Historically, the term was used to name a variant of “direct realism,” which claimed (1) that everyday material objects, such as caterpillars and cadillacs, have mind-independent existence (the “realism” part); (2) that our visual perception of these material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part); and (3) these objects possess all the features that we perceive them to have (the “naïve” part). In this, the theory contrasted with theories such as scientific direct realism (which rejected (3)), indirect realism (which rejected (2) and (3)), and phenomenalism, which rejected (1). Today, however, most philosophical theories of visual perception would endorse at least claims (1) and (2), and many would also endorse (3). In this setting, “naïve realism” has taken on a more precise use. As understood today, the naïve realist claims that, when we successfully see a tomato, that tomato is literally a constituent of that experience, such that an experience of that fundamental kind could not have occurred in the absence of that object. As naïve realism, thus understood, sees perception as fundamentally involving a relation between subjects and their environments, the position is also sometimes known as “relationalism” in the contemporary literature. Typically, today’s naïve realist will also claim that the conscious “phenomenal” character of that experience is shaped by the objects of perception and their features, where this is understood in a constitutive, rather than merely a causal, sense. On such a view, the redness that I am aware of when I look at a ripe tomato is a matter of my experience acquainting me with the tomato’s color: the redness that I am aware of in this experience just is the redness of the tomato. As such a view appears to commit its proponent to a version of claim (3) above—that for one to see an object to have a feature, the object must actually have that feature—the inheritance of the name “naïve” realism seems appropriate. As for whether there can be naïve realist theories of senses other than vision, this is an issue that awaits a more detailed exploration.

    The key parts are in bold.

    Specifically, I think that "our visual perception of these material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data" means "the conscious 'phenomenal' character of that experience is shaped by the objects of perception and their features, where this is understood in a constitutive, rather than merely a causal, sense."     — Michael

    From above, (2) is the statement that:

    ...our visual perception of [...] material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part)

    I disagree that this has the same meaning as:

    ...the conscious “phenomenal” character of that experience is shaped by the objects of perception and their features, where this is understood in a constitutive, rather than merely a causal, sense. — Michael

    Please explain how the latter statement concerns the mediation of our visual perception of material objects "by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data".
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael


    According to the link you’ve provided to the article by Fish:

    Naïve realism is a theory in the philosophy of perception: primarily, the philosophy of vision. Historically, the term was used to name a variant of “direct realism,” which claimed (1) that everyday material objects, such as caterpillars and cadillacs, have mind-independent existence (the “realism” part); (2) that our visual perception of these material objects is not mediated by the perception of some other entities, such as sense-data (the “direct” part); and (3) these objects possess all the features that we perceive them to have (the “naïve” part). In this, the theory contrasted with theories such as scientific direct realism (which rejected (3)), indirect realism (which rejected (2) and (3)), and phenomenalism, which rejected (1). Today, however, most philosophical theories of visual perception would endorse at least claims (1) and (2), and many would also endorse (3). In this setting, “naïve realism” has taken on a more precise use.

    This indicates that one can reject (3) and yet still be a direct realist. It is not the automatic endorsement of indirect realism, as you claim.

    As I have repeatedly stated, our point of disagreement remains (2).
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    To clarify, when you say that, according to naive realism, perceptions and perceived distal objects have the same physical constituents, do you take this to mean that perceptions and the perceived distal objects are identical?
    — Luke

    You'll have to ask naive realists for specifics of what they mean     — Michael

    I'm surprised at this response. You've been dismissing my version of non-naive direct realism, claiming it to be a species of indirect realism, for at least the past 20 pages on this very basis. For example:

    This is the very point I am making. Non-naive direct realism is indirect realism given that they both accept that distal objects and their properties are not constituents of experience — Michael

    Now you are not sure about the specifics of the naive realists' position?

    I can only quote what they say — Michael

    Are you quoting naive realists, though?

    which is that the relation between conscious experience and distal objects is more than just causal and is non-representational, using the term "constituent", which means "being a part". — Michael

    In case you're interested, I queried ChatGPT about this:
    Reveal
    User
    Is naive realism the view that perceptions have the same physical constituents as the perceived objects?

    ChatGPT
    Yes, that's correct. Naive realism, also known as direct realism or common-sense realism, is the philosophical view that perceptions have the same physical constituents as the perceived objects. In other words, according to naive realism, when we perceive an object, our perceptual experience is directly caused by the object itself, and the properties we perceive (such as color, shape, texture) are inherent qualities of the object.

    Naive realists argue that perception provides direct and unmediated access to the external world, meaning that our perceptual experiences accurately reflect the properties of external objects. They deny the existence of mental representations or intermediaries in perception and maintain that our perceptual experiences are immediate and reliable sources of knowledge about the world.

    However, critics of naive realism, such as indirect realists and representationalists, argue that our perceptual experiences are mediated by mental representations or sense data, which may not always accurately reflect the properties of external objects. This philosophical debate raises questions about the nature of perception, the relationship between our minds and the external world, and the reliability of our perceptual experiences.

    User
    is naive realism the view that perceptions and perceived objects are identical?

    ChatGPT
    Naive realism, also known as direct realism or common-sense realism, is not necessarily the view that perceptions and perceived objects are identical. Instead, naive realism posits that perceptions directly represent external objects as they are, without the need for any intervening mental representations or intermediaries.

    In other words, naive realism suggests that when we perceive an object, our perceptual experience is caused by the object itself, and the properties we perceive (such as color, shape, texture) are inherent qualities of the object. However, this does not imply that perceptions and perceived objects are identical.

    Naive realists argue that perception provides direct and unmediated access to the external world, meaning that our perceptual experiences accurately reflect the properties of external objects. They deny the need for mental representations or intermediaries in perception and maintain that our perceptual experiences are immediate and reliable sources of knowledge about the world.

    However, critics of naive realism, such as indirect realists and representationalists, argue that our perceptual experiences are mediated by mental representations or sense data, which may not always accurately reflect the properties of external objects. This philosophical debate raises questions about the nature of perception, the relationship between our minds and the external world, and the reliability of our perceptual experiences.

    User
    How can perceptions and the perceived objects have the same physical constituents without being identical?

    ChatGPT
    Perceptions and perceived objects having the same physical constituents without being identical can be understood through the lens of naive realism, which posits that perceptions directly represent external objects as they are, without the need for any intervening mental representations or intermediaries.

    In naive realism, perceptions are considered to be caused by the physical properties of external objects interacting with our sensory organs. When we perceive an object, our sensory experience is a result of the object's physical properties (such as color, shape, texture) interacting with our sensory organs (such as eyes, ears, skin). As a result, the perceptual experience shares the same physical constituents as the perceived object in the external world.

    However, while perceptions and perceived objects may share the same physical constituents, they are not necessarily identical. This is because perceptions are subjective experiences that occur within the mind, whereas perceived objects exist independently in the external world. Perceptions are influenced by factors such as individual differences, cognitive biases, and contextual factors, which can affect how we perceive and interpret the physical properties of external objects.

    In summary, while perceptions and perceived objects may share the same physical constituents, they are distinct entities: perceptions are subjective experiences within the mind, while perceived objects are external entities in the physical world. Naive realism suggests that perceptions provide direct and unmediated access to the external world, but it does not imply that perceptions and perceived objects are identical.

    User
    you say that naive realism posits that perceptions directly represent objects as they are. Isn’t this a form of representationalism?

    ChatGPT
    You raise an insightful point. While naive realism does emphasize that perceptions directly represent external objects as they are, it is indeed a form of representationalism, but with a key distinction.

    Representationalism, in general, is the philosophical view that perception involves mental representations or intermediaries that stand between the mind and the external world. According to representationalism, we do not directly perceive external objects, but rather mental representations or images of those objects that are generated by our senses.

    Naive realism, on the other hand, is a form of representationalism that maintains that these mental representations or intermediaries faithfully represent the external objects themselves. In other words, while naive realism acknowledges the existence of mental representations in perception, it argues that these representations accurately reflect the properties of external objects without distortion or interpretation.

    So, while both naive realism and representationalism acknowledge the role of mental representations in perception, naive realism distinguishes itself by asserting that these representations directly correspond to external objects as they are, without the need for interpretation or mediation. However, this view has been subject to criticism, particularly from indirect realists, who argue that mental representations can be influenced by factors such as perceptual illusions and cognitive biases, leading to a departure from the external reality they represent.

    User
    How can naive realism be a form of representationalism if it rejects the need for any representation?

    ChatGPT
    You're correct; I misspoke. Naive realism is actually a form of direct realism, not representationalism.

    Direct realism, including naive realism, posits that perception provides direct access to the external world without the need for mental representations or intermediaries. In other words, according to naive realism, when we perceive an object, our perception directly corresponds to the external object itself, rather than to a mental representation of it.

    Thank you for catching that mistake. It's essential to clarify that naive realism stands in contrast to representationalism, which posits that perception involves mental representations or intermediaries that stand between the mind and the external world. In representationalism, perceptions are thought to be representations or images generated by the mind, whereas in naive realism, perceptions are believed to directly represent external objects as they are.

    User
    How can perceptions represent objects as they are without any representation?

    ChatGPT
    You're correct; my previous statement was imprecise. Let me clarify:

    Naive realism, also known as direct realism, posits that perceptions directly represent external objects as they are, without the need for mental representations or intermediaries. However, this view doesn't entirely reject the idea of representation but rather suggests that our perceptions themselves are representations of the external world.

    In naive realism, perceptions are considered to be caused by the physical properties of external objects interacting with our sensory organs. When we perceive an object, our sensory experience is a result of the object's physical properties (such as color, shape, texture) interacting with our sensory organs (such as eyes, ears, skin). As a result, the perceptual experience is believed to directly correspond to the external object itself, without the need for mental intermediaries.

    So, while naive realism doesn't explicitly posit the existence of mental representations or intermediaries in perception, it implies that our perceptions themselves act as representations of the external world. This view suggests that our perceptual experiences accurately reflect the properties of external objects, providing us with direct and unmediated access to the external world.

    User
    in this context, how can the naive realist’s perceptions have the same physical constituents as their perceived objects without being identical to them?

    ChatGPT
    In the context of naive realism, perceptions are considered to have the same physical constituents as their perceived objects because they are believed to directly represent the external world. However, this does not imply that perceptions and perceived objects are identical.

    Naive realism suggests that when we perceive an object, our perceptual experience is caused by the object's physical properties interacting with our sensory organs. As a result, the perceptual experience shares the same physical constituents as the perceived object in the external world. For example, if we perceive a red apple, the redness we experience is caused by the light reflecting off the surface of the apple and entering our eyes, stimulating our visual receptors in a certain way.

    However, while perceptions and perceived objects may share the same physical constituents, they are not necessarily identical. Perceptions are subjective experiences that occur within the mind, whereas perceived objects exist independently in the external world. Perceptions are influenced by factors such as individual differences, cognitive biases, and contextual factors, which can affect how we perceive and interpret the physical properties of external objects.

    In summary, naive realism suggests that perceptions accurately represent the physical properties of external objects, providing us with direct access to the external world. While perceptions and perceived objects may share the same physical constituents, they are distinct entities: perceptions are subjective experiences within the mind, while perceived objects are external entities in the physical world.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael

    To clarify, when you say that, according to naive realism, perceptions and perceived distal objects have the same physical constituents, do you take this to mean that perceptions and the perceived distal objects are identical?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael
    ↪Michael


    None of these quotes state or even suggest that the naive realism position is that their perceptions have the same physical constituents as the perceived object. They say only that it seems that way, or that our perceptions are shaped by those objects.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Indirect realists don't argue that percepts exist, that distal objects and their properties are not constituents of these percepts, and that perception is indirect, as if this latter claim is distinct from the other two. Rather, by "perception is indirect" they just mean that percepts exist and that distal objects and their properties are not constituents of these percepts – and the science of perception supports this. — Michael

    Why can't naive realists simply hold the view that distal objects have the properties that they perceive them to have? I find your view that naive realists hold the view that their perceptions have the same physical constituents as the perceived object to be a strawman. Where did you get this idea from? Your author of Semantic Direct Realism does not define naive realism (GDR or PDR) in terms of the physical constituents of percepts.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    What is the physical/physiological difference between mental representations mediating perceptions of real objects and not mediating perceptions of real objects? — Michael

    I don't know of any physical/physiological difference.

    Is it your position that our perceptions of real objects are mediated by mental representations or not?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    What is the physical/physiological difference between mental representations existing and not being mediations and mental representations existing and being mediations? — Michael

    If mental representations do not mediate our perceptions of real objects, then our perceptions of real objects are not indirect, they are direct.

    You seem to believe that the directness or immediacy of perceptions is completely irrelevant, yet indirect realism is the view that our perceptions of mental representations is direct or immediate, and that our perceptions of real objects (mediated by mental representations or sense data) is indirect.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    This distinction you're trying to make just doesn't seem to make any sense.

    The indirect realist claims that something like mental representations exist, that distal objects and their properties are not constituents of these mental representations, and that we have direct knowledge only of these mental representations.     — Michael

    I don’t know what you mean by “direct knowledge”. The relevant question is whether or not we have direct perceptions. — Luke

    If you want to make the same claim but call it "direct realism" then you're welcome to, but as it stands there is no meaningful difference between your direct realism and my indirect realism. — Michael

    You can call it a merely grammatical dispute if you like, but then you must be in agreement with me that our perceptions are mental representations, that our perceptions of the world do not require any mediation, and that we can have direct perceptions of the world.

    But I don’t see how this is consistent with the indirect realist position that our perceptions are directly of mental representations and only indirectly of the world; that is, that our perceptions of the world are mediated by mental representations.     — Luke
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    What is the physical/physiological difference between the two? — Michael

    I don’t know if there is any physical/physiological difference. We are both positing mental representations.

    If you accept that mental "representations" exist… — Michael

    I do.

    …and if you accept that we have direct knowledge only of these mental representations… — Michael

    I don’t know what you mean by “direct knowledge”. The relevant question is whether or not we have direct perceptions.

    …and if you accept that the qualities of these mental representations (smells, tastes, colours, etc.) are not (and are possibly unlike) the mind-independent properties of distal objects… — Michael

    It may be helpful to speak in terms of correspondence. A naive realist claims that their perceptions perfectly correspond to the world. An indirect realist claims that their perceptions perfectly correspond only to their mental representations, and that their perceptions imperfectly correspond to the world (if at all). This “correspondence” is therefore synonymous with a “direct perception”.

    However, there is another meaning, or another aspect to the meaning, of “direct perception”. This other meaning involves the mediation of one’s perceptions; that we either perceive real objects directly or via something else.

    I agree with the indirect realist in the first sense, that our mental representations of the world do not always perfectly correspond to the world. However, I disagree with the indirect realist in the second sense: that we cannot directly perceive the world; that our perceptions must be mediated. That is, I disagree with the indirect realist that we have perceptions of mental representations of the world. My argument is that perceptions are mental representations and that perceptions/mental representations can be directly of the world; of real objects, without first requiring the perception of any mediating factor.

    Just understand that your direct realism is not inconsistent with my indirect realism. They're the same position, just given different names. — Michael

    You can call it a merely grammatical dispute if you like, but then you must be in agreement with me that our perceptions are mental representations, that our perceptions of the world do not require any mediation, and that we can have direct perceptions of the world.

    But I don’t see how this is consistent with the indirect realist position that our perceptions are directly of mental representations and only indirectly of the world; that is, that our perceptions of the world are mediated by mental representations.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    I'm not speaking for Luke. He's far more eloquent and concise than I. — creativesoul

    I don't know about that, but it's very kind of you to say. :)
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    What is the physical/physiological difference between us seeing a mental representation and a mental representation existing in our heads?

    This is where I think you're getting so confused by grammar.

    If mental representations exist and if distal objects are not constituents of these mental representations and if our knowledge of distal objects is mediated by knowledge of these mental representations then indirect realism is true, because that's all that indirect realism means.     — Michael

    Apologies for the following "argument by AI", but it is far more eloquent than I am, and I believe is in agreement with my view:

    I asked ChatGPT for some assistance in distinguishing my view from indirect realism:

    User
    With respect to the direct/indirect realism debate, what difference does it make to the indirect realist position to say that perceptions are mental representations, instead of that we perceive mental representations?

    ChatGPT
    In the direct/indirect realism debate, direct realists argue that we perceive the external world directly, while indirect realists contend that what we perceive are mental representations or sense data, rather than the external world itself. The distinction between saying "perceptions are mental representations" versus "we perceive mental representations" may seem subtle, but it carries significant implications for the indirect realist position.

    Perceptions as Mental Representations: This perspective suggests that perceptions are constructed within the mind based on sensory input. In other words, our experiences of the external world are mediated by mental processes that interpret and represent sensory data. From this viewpoint, perceptions are seen as internal mental states that correspond to external objects or events. Indirect realists who adopt this view typically argue that our awareness of the external world is always filtered through mental representations, which may or may not accurately reflect the true nature of external objects.

    We Perceive Mental Representations: This formulation emphasizes the act of perception itself, suggesting that what we directly encounter are mental representations rather than external objects. According to this interpretation, perception is inherently subjective and mediated by mental processes. Indirect realists who adopt this stance argue that our experiences are fundamentally shaped by the way our minds represent sensory information, and that there is no direct access to the external world independent of these mental representations.

    The difference between these two formulations lies in the emphasis on either the nature of perceptions themselves or the act of perceiving. However, both perspectives align in asserting that our awareness of the world is mediated by mental representations. The distinction may have implications for how indirect realists conceptualize the relationship between the mind and the external world, as well as how they address philosophical challenges such as skepticism and the problem of perception.

    User
    Could those who say "perceptions are mental representations" be direct realists instead of indirect realists?

    ChatGPT
    Yes, it's possible for individuals who assert that "perceptions are mental representations" to still be direct realists, although this stance might require some clarification and nuance.

    In the direct realism framework, the key idea is that our perceptual experiences directly reflect the external world as it is, without the need for intermediary mental representations. However, some direct realists might acknowledge that perceptions involve mental processing and representation without necessarily subscribing to the idea that these representations mediate our access to the external world.

    For instance, a direct realist who asserts that "perceptions are mental representations" might argue that the mind actively organizes sensory input and constructs a coherent perceptual experience, but they would maintain that this process occurs in real-time and directly corresponds to external objects or events. In this view, mental representations are seen as immediate reflections of the external world rather than intermediaries that stand between the mind and reality.

    So, while the statement "perceptions are mental representations" is often associated with indirect realism, it's conceivable for a direct realist to adopt this view with the caveat that mental representations serve as immediate reflections of external reality rather than as intermediaries mediating perception.

    This also appears to be consistent with the enactivist view that @Pierre-Normand and @fdrake have been arguing for, if I understand it correctly.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Thanks for the explanation. A question arises regarding the misguided notion of naive realism, that to perceive a real object is to perceive the world in itself.

    The qualifiers “in itself” or “as it is” confuse me to no end, and to be honest I have never seen a naive realist affix these phrases to statements about an object of perception, at least in common language. It makes me think that in order to see an object “as it is” I must see it from an infinite amount of perspectives at the same time, that in order to really see an object I must also see what I cannot possibly see, for instance the back of an object while looking at the front of it, or what it looks like if no one was looking at it, and so on.     — NOS4A2

    Naive realism "is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are." (Wikipedia)

    "Naïve realism claims that [...] objects continue to have all the properties that we usually perceive them to have, properties such as yellowness, warmth, and mass." (IEP)

    "Naive realism is the philosophical concept that suggests our senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world as it truly is, without any interpretation or mediation. According to naive realism, when we perceive something, we directly perceive the object itself as it exists independently of our perception." (ChatGPT)

    Illusions and hallucinations are often cited as being problematic for naive realism, suggesting that our senses do not provide us with direct awareness of the external world as it is. Science also tells us that the world isn't really coloured, so we do not perceive the world as it really is wrt colour. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of the naive realist view of perceiving the world in itself, or as it really is.

    So the question is: If we’re not perceiving the world in itself or as it is, what are we perceiving? — NOS4A2

    According to my view, which is neither naive realism or indirect realism, we are perceiving the world as (normal) humans (normally) perceive it, given our human sensory organs (that is, assuming you and I both perceive it in the normal way, like most humans do). This includes us perceiving illusions, such as sticks bending in water, the Muller-Lyer illusion, or the checker shadow illusion. Science tells us that other animals (and some other humans) may perceive the world differently to us.

    To paraphrase the ChatGPT definition of naive realism above, on my view, when we perceive something, we can directly perceive the object itself, but the perception depends on our sensory organs or perceptual apparatus.
  • Infinite Staircase Paradox
    So to make this simpler; I am watching a stopwatch whilst the counter is counting according to the prescribed rules. When the stopwatch reaches 60 I look at the counter. What digit does it show? — Michael

    I imagine the counter would be spinning at a near-infinite speed by that stage, making it very difficult to read.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Yes, to me, internally representing the world begets a representation of the world, something that represents, models, or stands for, the environment. We have a space in which representing occurs (internally), and presumably this representation or act of representation (sight) is the intentional object.

    I could be completely wrong; that’s just how I always understood representationalism.     — NOS4A2

    Right, but the direct/indirect realism discussion is also commonly framed in terms of whether we directly perceive real objects or whether we instead directly perceive a representation or other perceptual intermediary (and only indirectly perceive real objects). I reject that we perceive a mental representation and say that we directly perceive real objects.

    As stated earlier, I think the naive realist position is based on the misguided notion that when we perceive a real object we perceive the world in itself (or somehow identify the perception with the object). A perception that is identical with its object is not really a perception at all; it is the object.

    The indirect realist opposes the naive realist position, saying that we do not directly perceive a real object but that we directly perceive only a mental representation of the real object.

    I reject the direct realist notion that to perceive a real object is to perceive the world in itself (or that our perceptions are identical with the perceived object) and the indirect realist notion that we directly perceive only mental representations of real objects. Instead, I say that our perception of real objects is direct (in a non-naive sense) because perceptions are mental representations.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The condition of the body, I presume? — NOS4A2

    Yes.

    I’m curious because as far as I know representations prohibit us from seeing the world, and I’m interested in how you can see (or represent) around them. — NOS4A2

    How do representations prohibit us from seeing the world? I think you may be referring to seeing a representation of the world (instead of the world)?

    What I am talking about is sight as a representation (an internal representation) of the world. In order to see anything, the things we see are internally represented. So we need an internal representation in order to see the world (or to see anything). That’s a very basic description of my understanding of how sight works.

    What you are referring to—seeing a representation of the world instead of the world—would require us to have sight, or an internal representation, in the first place. Otherwise, we would not see anything, including seeing a representation instead of the world.

    ETA: You don’t see an internal representation; sight is an internal representation.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Why would the brain represent the world to you if you weren’t to view the representation? — NOS4A2

    The representation is the condition for seeing something, not some thing that you see.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Given that both "I see cows" and "I see colours" is true, what do you think direct and indirect realists are arguing about? — Michael

    I think direct and indirect realists are arguing over whether we perceive the world directly or whether we perceive mental representations (or some other intermediary) of the world.

    While I believe that mental representations are necessarily involved in perception, or that perceptions are mental representations, I reject the indirect realist view that we perceive mental representations.

    My view is that the brain represents the world to us in cases of sensory perception, and that the representation is the act of seeing; Therefore, we do not perceive the representation. If perceptions are mental representations, as per my view, then it would require a prior mental representation in order to perceive the first mental representation; a prior perception in order to perceive the first perception.

    You claim that "I see cows" and "I see colours" is true, but on the proviso that you see colours directly and see cows only indirectly. I make no such distinction. When I see cows and their colours, I make no distinction between seeing the colours directly and the cows indirectly. My brain represents the cows to me in the act of seeing, and the colours are a part of that singular representation. I do not see a mental representation; I see the cows. And I see them in colour.

    How, then, do I see colours if they are not in the world? Because that's just what human seeing is (normally); that's how our brains visually represent the world. That's what it means to "see" objects.

    The problem I have with indirect realism, although it correctly identifies the necessity of representation, is that it begins from a position prior to representation or perception, and from there it claims to perceive representations. Indirect realists posit an intermediary mental representation between our perceptions and the world, but if our perceptions are mental representations, as I posit, then in order to perceive this intermediary representation of the world, a (second) representation of this intermediary representation is required. And so on.

    If perceptions are mental representations, then we do not perceive mental representations (of objects). The only possible intermediary between a perception and a real object must be located in the (external) world.

    If that's the same as what you mean by "I see cows" or "I see colours", then I guess we are both direct realists.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Which is why arguing over the grammar of "I see X" doesn't address the philosophical substance of naive or indirect realism, which concerns whether or not distal objects and their properties are constituents of experience. Naive realists claim they are, indirect realists claim they're not. — Michael

    I don’t see how this relates to whether we perceive objects directly or indirectly or, in particular, how it relates to the supposed perception of representations or perceptual intermediaries. This is the philosophical substance of the dispute as I understand it. Direct realists claim we do not perceive any perceptual intermediary or representation, whereas indirect realists claim that we do.

    Furthermore, I don’t see why a direct realist must hold the view that “distal objects and their properties are constituents of experience” in the physical sense that you suppose. A direct realist can have an unmediated perception without the perception needing to be the perceived object. Otherwise, it’s just a strawman of perception.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael
    How is the dispute between naive realists and indirect realists any different? One group just prefers to use the noun "visual experience" to include distal objects among its constituents when talking about having a visual experience and the other group just prefers to use the noun "visual experience" to exclude distal objects among its constituents when talking about having a visual experience.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The problem is that for each of your examples, the second sentence is wrong, not the "I see" part. — Lionino

    I take it you mean the second part of the sentence? Why should it be wrong if, as Michael claims, "I see distal objects" and "I see mental phenomena" are both true? I take it this covers all instances of seeing.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Are the following statements also true?
    "I see cows and cows are mental phenomena."
    "I see colours and colours are distal objects."
    "I feel pains and pains are distal objects." — Luke


    No.     — Michael

    Then how is it merely grammatical? You said:

    I'm pointing out that both "I see distal objects" and "I see mental phenomena" are true. — Michael
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    I'm pointing out that both "I see distal objects" and "I see mental phenomena" are true. I see cows and cows are distal objects. I see colours and colours are mental phenomena.

    Which is why arguing over the grammar of "I see X" doesn't address the philosophical substance of naive or indirect realism.     — Michael

    Are the following statements also true?
    "I see cows and cows are mental phenomena."
    "I see colours and colours are distal objects."
    "I feel pains and pains are distal objects."
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Yes, we see distal objects.
    — Michael

    So, are distal objects a mental phenomena?
    — Luke

    No     — Michael

    Then I don't understand the point of this post:

    What do you think "see" means? What do you think "feel" means?

    Do I see colours? Are colours a mental phenomena? Do I feel pain? Is pain a mental phenomena?     — Michael
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Yes, we see distal objects. — Michael

    So, are distal objects a mental phenomena?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Because I'm including hearing and smelling and tasting and feeling. It's not all about sight. — Michael

    I never said it was all about sight. I asked whether we see distal objects.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Yes, we experience distal objects like cows. And we experience mental phenomena like colours and smells and tastes and pain. — Michael

    I asked whether we see distal objects. Why are you now talking about experience instead of seeing?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Do I see colours? Are colours a mental phenomena? Do I feel pain? Is pain a mental phenomena? — Michael

    Do I see distal objects? Do I feel distal objects when I touch them? Are distal objects a mental phenomena?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    They mean the same thing by "visual experience" but disagree on what constitutes it. — Michael

    I could equally say that direct and indirect realists mean the same thing by "I see X" but disagree on what constitutes X.

    Given that you have said such things as "perceptual experience is a representation" and "we cannot directly perceive distal objects as they are in themselves" you reject naive realism and agree with the substance of indirect realism, even if you disagree with the grammar of "we see representations". — Michael

    I do not agree with the substance of indirect realism. To reject naive realism is not necessarily to accept indirect realism. This is not a grammatical dispute over "we see representations". The claim "we see representations" is the substance of the dispute between direct and indirect realists. Indirect realists claim that we see representations, whereas direct realists claim that we do not see representations.

    To say 'perceptual experience is a representation' (as I said), is not equivalent to saying 'we perceive representations' (as indirect realists claim). To say that the perceptual experience is a representation is not to say that the perceptual experience is the perceived object, or the thing seen. The representation is the seeing, not the thing seen.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The dispute between naive realists and indirect realists concerns whether or not experience provides us with direct knowledge of the mind-independent nature of distal objects. That's not a grammatical dispute. Whatever each group means by "visual experience" it must be such that if, as naive realists claim, distal objects are constituents of visual experience then we have direct knowledge of the mind-independent nature of distal objects. — Michael

    Whatever each group means by it, it must be such that if what one group means by it is true, then…?

    Naive realists claim that “visual experience” includes distal objects among its constituents. Indirect realists claim that “visual experience” does not include distal objects among its constituents. Therefore, both groups mean something different by “visual experience”.

    Otherwise, please explain how one group claiming that we perceive real objects and another group claiming that we perceive mental objects is a merely grammatical dispute.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    It seems to me as if my visual experience literally extends beyond my body and that distal objects are literally present within my visual experience. This is the naive view that naive realists accepted as true, but which the science of perception has now shown to be false. Indirect realists rejected this naive view and claimed that the visual experience is a mental phenomenon that exists within the brain and is, at best, a representation of the world outside the body.

    Then so-called "non-naive" direct realists accept this indirect realist view but for some reason call themselves direct realists, probably because that get confused by the grammar of "I see X".

    They've just redefined the meaning of "direct perception".     — Michael

    I do not hold the naive realist view that visual experience extends beyond the body. However, this does not make me an indirect realist because there is another point of dispute between direct realists and indirect realists. Direct realists claim that we directly perceive real objects, whereas indirect realists claim that we directly perceive mental objects.

    While this latter dispute could boil down to a disagreement over the meaning of the word "perceive", the dispute between naive and indirect realists could equally be viewed as a disagreement over the meaning of the phrase "visual experience". So, if the dispute between direct realists and indirect realists is merely grammatical, then so too is the dispute between naive realists and indirect realists. They are therefore equally substantive disputes.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    I see colours and colours are a mental phenomenon.
    I see trees and trees are not a mental phenomenon.
    I feel pain and pain is a mental phenomenon.
    I feel my hand burning and my hand burning is not a mental phenomenon.     — Michael

    According to indirect realists, these are all mental phenomena, no matter what you see or feel. What you see or feel can only be a representation, so it must all be mental phenomena. Unless indirect realists are allowed to have both perceptions of a mental phenomena and perceptions not of a mental phenomena?

    The phrases "I see" and "I feel" have more than one meaning. — Michael

    But not as the indirect realist uses them.
Home » Luke